Mak-Levrion Kah Kay Natasha v R Shiamala

Facts

Mak-Levrion Kah Kay Natasha sued R Shiamala in HC/OC 241/2023. Her case was that between 2016 and 2019 she made a series of interest-free friendly loans to the defendant, and that on 24 June 2021 both signed an Acknowledgment of Debt (AOD) stating that the defendant owed SGD$525,200.00. The defendant does not dispute signing it. Her pleaded defence was that she signed in a hurry on the claimant's representation that it was only to quiet the claimant's husband, and that the claimant had messaged her to settle for 400k, so she disputes the amount.

The defendant, acting in person, filed no affidavit in the summary judgment application, HC/SUM 1706/2023. An Assistant Registrar entered summary judgment for $514,200, after allowing for a repayment of $11,000. The defendant appealed in Registrar's Appeal No 202 of 2023 and, at the hearing, asked orally for more time to file an affidavit.

Issues

1. Whether the self-represented defendant should be given an extension of time to file an affidavit on the appeal
2. Whether a claimant seeking summary judgment must first establish a prima facie case, and to what standard
3. Whether the claimant established a prima facie case for $525,200 on the AOD and the underlying loans
4. Whether judgment should instead be entered on liability or for a lower figure

Holding

The High Court allowed the defendant's appeal and granted her unconditional leave to defend the claim at a full trial. Her oral application for an extension of time to file an affidavit was refused. Costs submissions, limited to seven pages each, were to be filed within 14 days unless the parties agreed costs.

Reasoning

The court refused the extension. Self-represented parties may receive some indulgence but not as of right. The defendant had twice told case conferences that she did not want to file an affidavit because of the cost, had not made a formal application despite being told to, and it would be unfair to the claimant to let her file one late.

On the law, the court held that a claimant must show a prima facie case before the defendant's defence is considered, and rejected the submission that this is a lower standard than the balance of probabilities. A prima facie case must at least be supported by the claimant's own evidence, internally consistent and not inherently unbelievable without good explanation.

The claimant's case failed that test. The AOD's words did not match its numerical figure, and it described loans from 2015 although the claimant said she first met the defendant in early 2016, and as interest-free although two IOUs referred to interest. Her own spreadsheet totalled $487,700 before repayments, and two other signed documents gave $524,790 as at 30 June 2016 and $533,290 as at 19 October 2019, each inconsistent with the spreadsheet; one also had mismatched words and figures. Counsel accepted the evidence was messy and inconsistent. Parts of the account were also inherently hard to believe, such as large cash loans after a single meeting and continued lending while the claimant described herself as in financial difficulty.

The court would not substitute the spreadsheet figure of $470,700 or $400,000, as neither was the pleaded case, and the defendant's words at the hearing below were not an unequivocal admission. Although the defendant accepted owing some money, liability was tied to the quantum of numerous unparticularised loans, so judgment on liability alone was not appropriate.

From the judgment